This invention relates in general to machines for testing and/or inspecting workpieces to insure that one or more predetermined standards of performance and/or quality have been met. In particular, this invention relates to an improved apparatus for testing such workpieces and for allowing an operator to manually mark such workpieces with a visually perceptible indication of the result of the testing, wherein the manual marking system minimizes the opportunities for an operator to apply an incorrect mark to the workpiece (i.e., mark a “good” workpiece as being “bad”, or vice versa).
A variety of machines are known in the art for testing and/or inspecting workpieces to insure that one or more predetermined standards of performance and/or quality have been met. For example, in the manufacture of flexible conduits (such as rubber hoses) that convey pressurized fluids, it is often necessary or desirable to pressure test each and every hose that is manufactured to insure that it can withstand a predetermined amount of fluid pressure without leaking. To accomplish this, it is known to provide an apparatus including a source of pressurized fluid that communicates with a pair of couplings. To initiate a pressure test, the ends of the hose are connected to the couplings, and the source of pressurized fluid is energized so as to supply pressurized fluid within the hose for a predetermined period of time. If no leakage occurs during the course of the test, then the hose passes the pressure test and is satisfactory for use and/or sale. On the other hand, if some leakage occurs during the course of the test, then the hose fails the pressure test and is destroyed.
In order to prevent any confusion in distinguishing between the “good” workpieces that have passed the predetermined standard (such as the pressure test described above) and the “bad” hoses that have failed such standard, it is known to mark some of the workpieces with a visually perceptible indication. Typically, the visually perceptible indication is applied only to those “good” workpieces that have satisfied the predetermined standard, while the “bad” workpieces that have not satisfied the predetermined standard are left unmarked. However, in other instances, it may be desirable to mark the workpieces in the opposite manner, namely, apply the visually perceptible indication to the “bad” workpieces that have not satisfied the predetermined standard and leave the “good” workpieces that have satisfied the predetermined standard unmarked. Regardless, the use of a visually perceptible indication provides a clear and unambiguous mechanism for distinguishing between the workpieces that have passed the predetermined standard and those that have failed.
To facilitate the marking of the workpieces, a marking system is often provided in conjunction with or adjacent to the testing apparatus. A variety of such marking systems are known in the art. Some of such marking systems are mounted directly on the testing apparatus and function automatically to apply the visually perceptible indication to the “good” workpieces that have satisfied (or, alternatively, the “bad” workpieces that have not satisfied) the predetermined standard. However, the use of such automatic marking systems is not always feasible. For example, if the testing apparatus is used to test workpieces having a variety of sizes and shapes, or if the testing apparatus is used to test workpieces in a harsh or wet environment, then the use of an automatic marking system may be relatively difficult.
In these instances, a manual marking system (i.e., a marking system that is manually actuated by an operator of the testing apparatus to mark the workpieces after the testing has been completed) is often used. A typical manual marking system includes a marker that is manually used by the operator to apply the visually perceptible indication to the “good” workpieces that have satisfied (or, alternatively, to the “bad” workpieces that have not satisfied) the predetermined standard. Unfortunately, this simple approach is susceptible to errors (i.e., the incorrect marking of a “good” workpiece as being “bad”, or vice versa) as a result of fatigue or carelessness on the part of the operator of the testing apparatus. Thus, it would be desirable to an improved apparatus for testing workpieces and for marking such workpieces with the visually perceptible indication that minimizes the opportunities for such errors to occur.